ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87.—(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.— Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,

(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.

(8) Prohibition re identifying child.— No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged.— The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142.—(3) Offences re publication.— A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto v. N.D., 2021 ONCJ 369

DATE: August 17, 2021

COURT FILE No.: 30224/19

BETWEEN:

Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto

Applicant,

— AND —

N.D. / Respondent Mother

E[…] Child and Family Services, New Brunswick

Respondent Father’s Band

Before Justice Debra Paulseth

Judgment released July 9, 2021; Amended August 17, 2021[1]

Haley Gaber-Katz and Arthi Srivarapathy .............. counsel for the applicant society

N.D. ..…………………………………………………………………….representing herself

Tammy Law …………………………………………………………………...Amicus Curiae

Paulseth J.:

Overview:

[1] The child, (S-L. or the child) was born on […], 2019. On February 14, 2019, the Applicant (society) brought the child to a place of safety because N. D. (the mother) had left the hospital without her and the child’s father was incarcerated. The society was involved voluntarily prior to the child’s birth. The concerns were domestic violence between the parents and mother’s mental health that appeared to require significant medication.

[2] The father of the child, D.J.L. (the father) pled guilty to several counts of assault and a breach of recognizance, all with respect to the mother. He was sentenced to 13 months in custody and was not released until shortly after the child’s birth.

[3] A Protection Application, pursuant to the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (CYFSA or the Act) was filed with the court. The child was returned to mother under temporary supervision on April 25, 2019.

[4] At that time, mother’s family doctor and her pain doctor indicated her medications would not prevent her from parenting.

[5] On November 26, 2019, the parties resolved the case with a statement of agreed facts that supported a finding in need of protection under subsections 74(2)(b)(ii) and (k) of the Act but with a disposition of no further protection order.

[6] On August 15, 2019, the child’s father died of a drug overdose.

[7] Father was a member of the E[…] First Nation. This Band was served with court documents for both protection proceedings and has not filed an Answer nor participated in either case. The Band advised the society that unless there was a plan by father in New Brunswick, they would not be involved.

[8] On December 17, 2019, the society closed its file.

[9] On May 7, 2020, S-L came into the care of the society again at the request of the mother. A Temporary Care Agreement (TCA) for two weeks was signed by the society and mother; the purpose of which was to give mother an opportunity to adjust to new medication and address her mental health issues. An extension for two weeks was signed on May 20, 2020, at mother’s request. On May 21, 2020, mother said she wanted S-L back on May 21st but later agreed to a return on May 27, 2020.

[10] On May 25, 2020, mother refused to enter a voluntary working agreement with the society which would be engaged once the child returned home.

[11] A home visit on May 27, 2020 led to a disagreement between mother and workers about the suitability of the home for an infant. The two parties could not agree upon a further TCA and the society decided to apply to the court for a protection order.

[12] On that same day, mother contacted the foster parent, who became concerned about mother’s mental health and asked police to call on mother. Mother was taken to hospital by police but not admitted.

[13] A Protection Application dated May 29, 2020 was filed with the court and on June 1, 2020, the child was temporarily placed with the society with access to the mother. A date for a contested motion was set but adjourned at the request of counsel for mother. Subsequently, she did not oppose the society’s motion.

[14] The Protection Application was amended twice and now seeks a finding in need of protection under subsection 74(2)(b)(ii) and (h) of the Act and an order of extended society care without access. The society has changed its access position to an exchange of cards and letters 3 times a year with the child as the holder of access. The written plan has been filed.

[15] Mother is opposed to the finding and disposition being sought by the society and wants her daughter returned to her. She indicates in her Answer of January 4, 2021 that, in the alternative, she would accept a supervision order with any terms and conditions requested by the society. In her evidence at trial, mother sought an extension of the maximum interim society care order for a further three months as an alternative, and is seeking, if applicable, post extended care access for herself and her sister.

[16] Mother is self-represented. The case management judge appointed an amicus curiae (amicus). The position of the amicus is that mother should have access.

Issues for the court to decide:

• Is S-L a child in need of protection?

• If so, is a further order necessary to protect the child in the future?

• If so, what disposition is in S-L’s best interests? Should there be an extension to the maximum period of interim society care? What is the least intrusive order that would meet her best interests?

• If an extended care order is made; is access in the child’s best interests? If so, what access order would be in S-L’s best interests? Who would be the holders and recipients of that access?

(Decision continues with the full reasons exactly as in the source, including all numbered paragraphs and analysis through paragraph [358].)

Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 17th of August, 2021.

Justice Debra Paulseth

[1] Amended judgment deletes three paragraphs not properly in evidence before the court. The deletion of this information does nothing to change the findings, analysis, nor final decision.